Hacker News Reader

Comment by notdonspaulding | Hacker News Reader

Things like this are what make me a "bad" libertarian. Strict libertarians are all about keeping our nose (and military) out of other people's business. Put yourself in the POTUS' shoes, as the Commander-in-Chief of one of the largest potential forces for good the world has ever known, and tell me why we aren't rescuing the entire country of North Korea?

View on HN

Yes, let's start a land war in Asia against a country with nuclear weapons and an arsenal of conventional weapons pointed at the people of Seoul.

Feel free to define "rescuing the entire country of North Korea" if you feel I've misinterpreted you.

> Yes, let's start a land war in Asia against a country with nuclear weapons and an arsenal of conventional weapons pointed at the people of Seoul.

And on the doorsteps of both China and Russia, just for added chuckles, too.

Are we just supposed to tolerate them turning their own people into dog food?

Of course, as eddie izzard says, it's all okay as long as you only kill your own people—just never step next door.

I thought America's presence in Korea was imperialist until I went to Seoul in April and walked around trying to forget about the missiles that were pointed at my head. All of a sudden I discovered a newfound appreciation for American foreign policy, despite its faults.

Did you talk to any Korean citizens while you were there? All the ones I walked to wanted us gone.

Did you talk to the older ones or only younger ones? There seems to be a difference.

Actually you're right, the one person I did talk to about it did think the Americans should leave.

Life isn't black and white. What that means is that maybe US should get involved in some situations, and not get involved in others. So you don't have to think that either you get involved in no situation, or in all situations outside of the country.

I think US has done at least as much damage [1] as it has helped, which is why the situations need to very weighted very carefully, especially in the past decade or two, when it seems it has mostly used humanitarian excuses to get involved in new conflicts but with the main agenda of helping its economic interests, which is quite far from the goal of "helping others" for the sake of it.

[1] http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

"We" have already rescued Iraq, has it made life of the ordinary citizens of Iraq any better? I dont think so... http://rt.com/news/iraq-poverty-war-crisis-414/

I'm not a libertarian and I believe in intervention for humanitarian reasons on principle however the cost has to be considered not just the benefit.

How many lives and injuries, (North Korean, South Korean and American/allied) would it be worth to free the survivors in North Korea? Even assuming China and Russia managed to stay out of it.

There is a cost in life that would be worthwhile but there are also costs that would be too high. I would like it to be possible but I'm far from convinced it is.

Practically any solution probably has to come through China or internal leadership succession.

>Strict libertarians are all about keeping our nose (and military) out of other people's business.

That just makes libertarians bad, not you a bad libertarian. Libertarianism is marked by a lack of concern for others and a reticence to help them. Whether it's social darwinism, isolationism, or opposition to social programs to help the less fortunate, the defining feature of libertarianism seems to be saying "fuck you, help your own self" to anyone in need.

That's a pretty silly idea of libertarianism. I think you're equating it with things like anarcho-capitalism and minarchism instead of proper anarchism.

Maybe I'm grossly misunderstanding libertarianism, but I've never seen a libertarian say, "we have a duty to help those in need". I've never seen a libertarian say, "the fortunate have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate", or "the fact that so few have so much while so many have so little is a fundamental injustice that needs to be rectified".

Instead, I read, "if you feel like helping someone it's good to do so, but you have no moral obligation to it", and "the problem with the poor is that we're not incentivizing them to get out of poverty", both of which display a profoundly alien concept of human morality and indeed human nature. Libertarianism is the conceit of the fortunate that they are deserving, and that the unfortunate are undeserving.

If that's what what it means to be a libertarian... today I learned I'm not one of them.

It doesn't. He is just knocking down a strawman.

Here's Milton Friedman, an esteemed libertarian, proposing a negative income tax (giving money to the poor as the most efficient kind of welfare):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

You have to judge based on the libertarian. Many political philosophies attract hoards of what I call "SWE Groupies." When you apply the Small World Effect to political philosophy, you will find that you can easily blame all the worlds problems on anything you want (the government, the patriarchy, the market, etc) because everything is interconnected. Based on purely anecdotal evidence, it seems that almost everyone who eventually wanders away from the political philosophy they were born into falls into the trap of blaming exactly one of these entities when the usual state of affairs is that they all hold blame to an uneven and debatable extent that changes depending on the issue in question. The worst result of such naivete is that it creates blind spots. Libertarians fail to propose measures to control market failures, socialists fail to propose measures to control bureaucracy, etc. In any case, most people are eventually confronted with enough counterexamples to shake them out of their blind faith and they move on to a mix-and-match philosophy that proposes systems more similar to real, proven governments (funny how that works).

This leaves the problem of finding a label for yourself, which can no longer be done in an absolutely precise manner. Milton Friedman, a "philosophically mature" libertarian, might agree with a devout socialist on a great many things (giving money to poor people), even though they identify with philosophies that look like polar opposites to the corresponding SWE Groupies. I bet that you show segments of the video I linked to SWE Libertarians and get them to swear up and down that this guy was a socialist.

People like Milton Friedman don't deserve to be lumped with people like Ayn Rand, and just because SV is infested with SWE Groupies of the libertarian persuasion (it's convenient to be a libertarian when the market is smiling upon your profession) doesn't mean that you won't find yourself on the wrong end of a political philosophy debate if you attack libertarianism as a whole rather than individual points raised in the argument.

I'm an anarchist saying those things, so hello there!

That's more of a caricature of libertarianism. Libertarians are against government for various reasons (some view it as inefficient and corrupt, others because they believe it's morally wrong to violate property rights and force people to do things.) However none but objectivists/ayn-rand-types would say "fuck you, help your own self". They would just support private charities and the like over government.

I am not a libertarian anymore mostly because I believe people should be forced to help others, but I do understand what they believe.

What do you mean by "rescuing the entire country"? Are you suggesting that we invest in a full-scale invasion of the DPRK?

1994, Clinton administration was prepared to launch an invasion into North Korea but was stopped by Jimmy Carter cutting a deal with North Korea and also the South Korean president at the time opposed Seoul becoming shelled with North Korean rockets and artillery shells.

The opposition comes mainly from South Koreans themselves, they do not want a war, they rather enjoy the status quo and look the other way when their own countrymen on the other side of border are getting massacred. Economy is more important in this mindset.

North Korea sinks a South Korean ships and kills 50 sailors and then proceeds to shell an island. South Korea's response is to do absolutely nothing but look to United States for "what do we do now" because their capital is in the artillery firing range of North Korea. The difference is that this time South Korean president Lee Myung Bak ordered airstrike but the South Korean air force generals replied by saying they need American permission, essentially suggesting South Korean president is not really in charge of it's own military in the time of need.

It seems like whenever South Korea doesn't want to take action on North, United States is willing. When United States is unwilling, South Korea is willing. A stark reminder that two countries, although an alliance forged with blood spilled during the Korean War, cannot share the same national interests because in the end, they are two different countries, with different culture and perspective.

If you are not willing to pay the price for reunification now, you certainly won't be able to reap the benefits of a reunification when it inevitably happens.

As a US-born Korean, American interventionism really bothers me. As others have discussed what happens when America tries to "make the world safe for democracy", the South Korean people and its government should be the sole arbiters of how they want to deal with these problems, instead of waiting to get a permission slip from Washington. There should be only one military force in South Korea, a South Korean military, under the command of the South Korean president.

I don't think it would be so bad. Both countries would still remain allies, and South Korea would still be under the US nuclear umbrella. The hope is that there wouldn't be any of this embarrassing vacillation in policy you just described.

Both countries would still remain allies, and South Korea would still be under the US nuclear umbrella.

Yeah,the US would totally be willing to launch nuclear weapons on behalf of the remains of South Korea.

I fail to see why you place such trust in the good intentions of the US if one of its protectorates tells it to fuck off.

Question, Russia and China threatens to Nuke South Korea and United States too if it interferes. South Korea gets nuked first. Does United States head down towards mutually assured destruction over a country smaller than the size of Minnesota? I think that it's a nuclear umbrella with large holes in it.

I agree with you. That's why the US troops are still in South Korea. South Korea is perfectly capable of defending itself but if there are no US troops to die in the first strike the US can do the sensible thing. But with them there North Korea soon becomes former North Korea.

And South Korea has slightly fewer people than France. It's not Minnesota.

Yeah, how hard can it be? Send a few ships down there, bomb the country two or three times (and ignore their rockets and possible nuclear weapons) and then send in the army to make peoples live better. Should be done in a few weeks!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but just look at Iraq for the effects of "rescuing the entire country" (from the clutches of Saddam Hussein) - if you have a good idea how to do it "the right way", then go on. Tell us. Tell someone whose job it is to fix that country right now. I'm pretty sure everyone would like to hear an easy solution.

> just look at Iraq for the effects of "rescuing the entire country"

I don't know how to tell you this, but in the case of Iraq it was never about that.

Oh no, a downvote without any arguments attached, how intimidating! Here's an idea, don't just take the empty rhetoric at face value, also look at what actually took place. But don't insult my intelligence with this nonsense.

Because of the Prime Directive. Although we may think we are doing good there is no way to know if our actions may lead to cultural destruction and ultimately cause more harm than good.

Think of North Korea as one gigantic hostage situation. Has it ever gone well when the so-called good guys decide to go in shooting? There are far more tactful ways to effect a rescue, it just requires a whole lot of political will which we are sadly lacking.

> Has it ever gone well when the so-called good guys decide to go in shooting?

Yes, of course. What do you think is the point of a no-hostage policy?

When the good guys go in shooting it almost always go well.

The biggest practical problem with invading North Korea, well-intentioned or not, is that it shares a long border with China.

" Strict libertarians are all about keeping our nose (and military) out of other people's business."

That depends on whether you're referring to Party Line Libertarian or a "libertarian" who is actually pro-liberty. Regarding the latter, liberty definitely condones coming to the defense of another person's liberty, regardless of borders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com